RSSChristianity Apolitical?
In the preface Hart writes, “I start from the premise that Christianity is an apolitical faith…” I appreciate the publisher’s supply the book for review and wish to hear Hart out. Accordingly I have read it carefully, cover to cover. However, had I not so promised, that stated premise whould likely led me to set the book aside. The Christian faith as are all faiths, religious or irreligious, theistic or atheistic, is practiced in this world of flesh and blood, of families and cities and nations. At the apex of all these temporal institutions and relationships, towers civil government overseeing, organizing and ruling human affairs. There is no escape nor does Biblical faith demand, or even recommend the attempt to escape. Christ is Lord. If one orders his relation to the political as tho he could ignore politics he deceives himself. Wittingly or unwittingly Christ is denied.
D Hart
March 24th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
But Mr. Harrington, wasn’t Christianity apolitical in some sense at its beginning since only rarely were Christians citizens (except for Paul) and since the Roman Empire didn’t recognize Christianity politically. In that historical and real sense Christianity was apolitical. Trying to see that reality is part of my purpose — it is like you say, trying not to escape reality. I know, Christianity did become political. But I have a lot of trouble with Constantine. Could my discomfort with the emperor be akin to Jesus’ discomfort with Peter wielding the sword?
nasteffe
March 24th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Mr Hart, I do want to agree with you that your discomfort with church-state rule might be connected to Jesus’ discomfort with Peter, though since Jesus had a problem with Peter’s methods of being the Kingdom, it seems that the same critique could be leveled at Constantine (though I certainly don’t know enough of him to opine on that). After all, Jesus’ Kingdom was never one that spread by the sword or the power thereof, as is normally seen in politics.
However, it seems that Christianity is inherently political (though you and I might disagree on the meaning of this term). Simply, God’s work on earth is that of a kingdom. It’s not the ‘club of God’, or the ‘organization of God’, or the ‘corporation of God’, but the ‘kingdom of God’. Even if we understand this as a mere metaphysical metaphor, wouldn’t it be powerfully destructive to deny any political nature to that kingdom?
It also seems as though the metaphors of Kingdom (Lord, Savior, bringer of peace, gospel, etc) have too much political resonance in Paul’s writings, for example, to ignore. I tend to think that NT Wright’s assessment of Paul in this area is correct: Jesus is Lord [and Caesar isn't].
However, I don’t think that we can say Christianity is political without breaking open our idea of ‘typical politics’ and seeing the broader spiritual/religious/social/economic/relational implications that are contained therein. Biblical politics are a lot bigger than modern politics.
MarkPele
March 27th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I think there is something missing here. In Luke 22:35-38, Jesus commands his disciples to buy swords, and as it happens, the only reason Peter is wearing a sword is by Christ’s command. They take the two swords in vs. 38 to the garden, and apparently one is in Peter’s hands.
Now the question is why did Christ command his disciples to buy swords? Possibly for self-defense. He later tells Pilate that if His kingdom were of the earth that his followers would be defending it by sword.
So we do have a difficult question to answer, but neither extreme is correct. First, it’s not the duty of Christians to take up arms like the Muslims and conquer the world by sword for the kingdom. But there is a time and a place where the kingdom calls for the sword. To deny that is to deny the very words of Christ in telling His disciples to buy swords.
Since the foundation of any legal system is morality, there is no place for escape from Biblical mandates. As nasteffe said, maybe we don’t agree on the definition of politics, but my understanding is that you define politics as the sphere of the state. That way, you can say that Christianity is concerned only with the church sphere and the eternal. To do so is to separate faith from works. We do works because we believe. Those works may be temporal, but they have eternal consequences. In the same way, the state’s temporal (works) nature does not remove it from the eternal consequences of its actions. Not that the “United States” will be on trial, but every citizen will be judged based on his action in promoting good and avoiding evil through his connection to the state.
W.H. Chellis
March 28th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Harold is away but asked me to post his response (BC):
“I do not have the R.P.Testimony at hand but I believe that
it says explicitly that no particular form of government is
ordained in Scripture. With this I entirely agree. If this
is all Mr. Hart means by “apolitical” fine, but I am not
sure that it is.
I question the use of John 18:10,11 and Matt. 26:52-54 to
establish an apolitical position from Scripture. At this
point Jesus was giving his life as a sacrifice. The
intention of his enemies was to take it from him, but this
they could not do apart from Christ and the Father’s
intention that he die. Even for Christ this was a once and
for all act. Is it correct to take a unique act of Jesus and
make it a normative rule for his followers? There is another
problem which Nasteffe has brought to our attention. It
seems to me that Mr. Hart’s position might tend to or be
used to fortify a pacifist or quietest ethic which dismisses
the Scpriture mentioned by Nasteffe. We will need some
credible, systematic integration of these texts before we
can yield to Mr. Hart’s interpretation. Certainly redemption
does not come by worldly, political means, but must we leap
to the conclusion that Christianity is an apolitical faith?
From some other of his comments, I wonder if Mr. Hart really
thinks so. Perhaps we differ on what is political.”
H. Harrington